הכל מעריכין ונערכין נודרין ונידרין כהנים לוים וישראלים נשים ועבדים טומטום ואנדרוגינוס נודרין ונידרין ומעריכין אבל לא נערכין שאינו נערך אלא הזכר ודאי ונקבה ודאית חרש שוטה וקטן נידרין ונערכין אבל לא נודרין ולא מעריכין מפני שאין בהם דעת:גמרא:
הכל מעריכין לאתויי מאי לאתויי מופלא סמוך לאיש נערכין לאתויי מאי לאתויי מנוול ומוכה שחין סד"א נדר בערכך כתיב כל שישנו בדמים ישנו בערכין וכל שאינו בדמים אינו בערכין קמ"ל נפשות כל דהו נודרין לאתויי מאי נידרין איצטריך ליה נידרין לאתויי מאי אי לאתויי טומטום ואנדרוגינוס בהדיא קתני להו ואי לאתויי חרש שוטה וקטן בהדיא קתני להו אי לאתויי פחות מבן חודש בהדיא קתני להו ואי לאתויי [עובד כוכבים] (נכרי) בהדיא קתני להו לעולם לאתויי פחות מבן חודש ותני והדר מפרש הכל סומכין לאתויי מאי לאתויי יורש ודלא כרבי יהודה הכל ממירין לאתויי מאי לאתויי יורש ודלא כרבי יהודה דתניא יורש סומך יורש מימר ר' יהודה אומר יורש אינו סומך יורש אינו מימר מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה (ויקרא א) קרבנו ולא קרבן אביו ויליף תחלת הקדש מסוף הקדש מה סוף הקדש יורש אינו סומך אף תחלת הקדש יורש אינו מימר ורבנן (ויקרא כז) המר ימיר לרבות את היורש וילפינן סוף הקדש מתחלת הקדש מה תחלת הקדש יורש מימר אף סוף הקדש יורש סומך ורבנן האי קרבנו מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי ליה קרבנו ולא קרבן [עובד כוכבים] (נכרי) קרבנו ולא קרבן חבירו קרבנו לרבות כל בעלי חוברין לסמיכה ורבי יהודה לרבות כל בעלי חוברין לסמיכה לית ליה ואי נמי אית ליה
ALL [PERSONS] ARE FIT TO EVALUATE OR TO BE MADE THE SUBJECTS OF VALUATION,(1) ARE FIT TO VOW(2) [ANOTHER'S WORTH] OR HAVE THEIR WORTH VOWED: - PRIESTS, LEVITES AND [ORDINARY] ISRAELITES, WOMEN AND SLAVES.
PERSONS OF UNKNOWN(3) SEX AND HERMAPHRODITES ARE FIT TO VOW [ANOTHER'S WORTH], OR TO HAVE THEIR WORTH VOWED, AND ARE FIT TO EVALUATE, BUT THEY ARE NOT FIT TO BE MADE THE SUBJECTS OF VALUATION, FOR THE SUBJECT OF VALUATION MAY BE ONLY A PERSON DEFINITELY EITHER MALE OR FEMALE.(4)
A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE, OR A MINOR(5) ARE FIT TO HAVE THEIR WORTH VOWED OR BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF VALUATION, BUT THEY ARE NOT FIT TO MAKE EITHER A VOW [OF ANOTHER'S WORTH] OR TO EVALUATE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MIND.GEMARA:
What does ALL [PERSONS] ARE FIT TO EVALUATE mean to include? - It is meant to include one close to manhood who must be examined.(6)
What does [ALL(7) ARE] FIT TO BE MADE THE SUBJECTS OF VALUATION mean to include? - It is meant to include a person disfigured, or one afflicted with boils.(8)
For one might have assumed that since Scripture says: A vow according to thy valuation,(9) that only such persons as are fit to be made the subjects of a vow [as regards their worth], are fit to be made subjects of a valuation, and that persons who are unfit to be made subjects of a vow [as regards their worth], are also unfit to be made subjects of a valuation, hence Scripture informs us: of persons(9) i.e. no matter who they be.
What does [ALL PERSONS] ARE FIT TO VOW mean to include? - [The phrase ALL] is needed only for [the clause] 'are fit to have their worth vowed' - What is to be included [in the phrase ALL] ARE FIT TO HAVE THEIR WORTH VOWED?
Is it to include persons of unknown sex or hermaphrodites - but they are expressly stated [in our Mishnah]! Again is it to include a deaf-mute, an imbecile and a minor - they too are expressly stated! And if it is to include a person below the age of one month - that too is expressly mentioned!(10) And again if it is to include an idolater - he too is expressly mentioned!(11) - In reality it is meant to include a person below the age of one month; and the Mishnah states it [by implication] and later on expressly mentions it.(12)
What does 'All persons are obliged to lay on hands' mean to include?(13) - It is meant to include the heir, and this against the view of R`Judah.(14)
What does 'All persons can effect a substitute'(15) mean to include? - That, too, means to include the heir, in contrast to the view of R`Judah.
For it was taught: An heir must lay on hands, an heir can effect a substitute.
R`Judah says: An heir does not lay on hands, and an heir cannot effect a substitute.
What is the reason of R`Judah's view? - [Scripture says:] His offering,(16) i.e., but not hi father's offering.
And he infers the rule concerning the commencement of the dedication of the animal from the rule governing its end.
Just as at the end of the dedication the heir does not lay on hands, thus also at th beginning(17) he cannot effect a substitute.
And the Rabbis? - [Scripture says redundantly:] And if he shall at all change - that included the heir.
And we infer the rule concerning the end of the dedication from the rule governing the commencement of the dedication.
Just as at the beginning of the dedication the heir has power to effect a substitute, so at the end is he obliged to lay his hands on the animal's head.(18)
But what do the Rabbis do with 'his offering'?
[They interpret:] 'his offering', but not the offering of an idolater; 'his offer but not the offering of his neighbour; 'his offering i.e. to include all who have a share(19) in the ownership of a sacrifice in the duty to lay on hands.
And R`Judah?(20) - He does not hold that all who have a share in the ownership share the obligation of laying hands thereon; or, indeed, if he should hold so
(1) Lev. XXVII, 1f fixes the value of the person dedicated to the sanctuary, this value depending only on the age of the person dedicated. Hence, if someone uses the formula: Erek peloni 'alay. i.e., the valuation of So-and-so be upon me (to pay to the sanctuary) . he must make payment in accord with the valuation fixed in Lev. XXVII, independent of the person's physical or mental condition. Thus e.g., the valuation fixed there for a man of the age of between twenty and sixty, is fifty shekels.
(2) But if he said: Deme peloni 'alay, i.e., the equivalent of the market value of So-and-so be upon me (to pay to the sanctuary) , he has made a vow and he must pay the amount which that person would fetch, if sold on the slave market. In this case the deciding factor would be not age, but physical and mental condition.
(3) Tumtum; lit., 'one hidden, stopped up'. i.e., a person whose genitalia are covered by a skin, hence one of unknown sex.
(4) Scripture refers (ibid.) to 'male' and 'female', but persons whose sex cannot be determined are excluded from the valuation.
(5) A boy under the age of thirteen, a girl under the age of twelve years.
(6) Mufla' from the root meaning, to make clear, to examine, hence 'one to be examined' as to the purpose for which he made the valuation. Above the age of thirteen such knowledge is taken for granted. Below the age of twelve it is assumed to be absent. During the period from twelve to thirteen the boy is to be subject to questioning. If the examination establishes his knowledge of the purpose of the dedication, his dedication is considered valid, and renders payment obligatory. Otherwise no significance is to be attached during that period to his utterance of the formula: Erek peloni 'alay.
(7) The first word of the Mishnah ALL is assumed to apply to the four cases enumerated. This word does not seem necessary, the Mishnah might have stated e.g., Priests, Levites and Israelites are fit etc. The additional ALL hence is assumed by the questioner to have implied the inclusion of persons whom, without this inclusion, one might have excluded. Hence the series of questions establishing the identity of the persons included in each case. This discussion leads to the consideration of other passages throughout the Mishnah, in which the word 'all' occurs, and to an explanation of who is included in each statement.
(8) Lev. XXVII, 2.
(9) A person disfigured, or afflicted with boils would fetch no price at all on the market place. In the expression A vow according to thy valuation, one might have inferred from this juxtaposition, that a certain fundamental agreement prevailed between cases of vow (of one's worth) and of valuation, and that therefore a person unfit to have his worth vowed (because a vow was redeemable by payment of the market value, which did not exist in the case of a disfigured person) would be unfit to be made the subject of a valuation. But this inference is cancelled by another Biblical phrase, which indicates that what is required is but 'persons', independent of their physical condition: When a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons (ibid.) .
(10) V. infra 5a.
(11) Ibid. 5b.
(12) By the redundant ALL, which obviously includes some person or persons, which but for this all-inclusive term, would have been excluded. The particular reason why this case rather than any other of the four here dealt with is included here Rashi finds in the fact that it is the only one concerning which a controversy exists (infra 5a) , whence the statement here by implication is of importance in teaching that even the Rabbis who hold that one who is less than a month cannot be subject to evaluation, nevertheless agree that he can have his worth vowed.
(13) The Gemara proceeds now to discuss all other cases in which a redundant 'all' is to convey sone inclusion in the principle of other persons. The laying on of the hands on the head of the animal to be sacrificed conveyed the sense of ownership. It was a duty, hence a question arises in the case of several partners, or in the case of proxy.
(14) R. Judah denied this obligation to an heir. Lev. I, 3 reads: If his be a burnt-offering . . he shall lay his hand upon the head. This, R. Judah argues, expressly limits the duty of laying the hand to the man who offered it, not to his heir, who is freed from his obligation.
(15) Lev. XXVII, 10: He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and If he shall at all change beast for beast, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy. The dispute concerns only the case of an heir in respect of an offering dedicated by his father but all agree that an exchange made by anyone besides the original owner of the sacrifice would have no effect at all, the first animal remaining sacred, the second not being affected by the unauthorized attempt at exchange.
(16) Lev. III ,2, 7 and 13 in connection with the laying on of hands in the case of peace-offerings. V. Rashi and Tosaf. a.l.
(17) First an animal is separated for the purpose of being offered on the altar. That is the commencement of its sanctification. At the end, just before the slaying of the animal, the owner lays his hand on its head. R. Judah infers from the regulations at the end, viz., the prohibition for anyone but the owner to lay hands on the head, the inefficacy of the change at the beginning, i.e., his intended exchange has no effect on the animal he wanted to substitute.
(18) The Sages infer from the redundant 'shall at all change' that even another may effect the substitute and argue from the beginning of the sanctification to the end, hence permit an heir to lay hands on the animal.
(19) The phrase 'his offering' occurs three times in Lev. III, viz., vv. 2, 7 and 13, and while two of these expressions have a limiting sense, one has an inclusive meaning, lust as 'his' implies ownership, so must anyone who has a claim to ownership lay his hands on the animal's head. Therefore, every member of a group who offer the animal together must perform the laying on of hands.
(20) Since R. Judah would interpret 'his offering' in each case in an exclusive sense, how could he derive the obligation of the laying on of hands on the part of anyone who shares in it-for which an inclusive interpretation is necessary?